JULY 2019 COOK STRAIT CONNECTIVITY - GW · COOK STRAIT CONNECTIVITY JULY 2019 PROGRAMME BUSINESS CASE FOR THE WELLINGTON FERRY TERMINALS THE COOK STRAIT FERRIES: NZ’S WATER BRIDGE

www.beca.com

COOK STRAIT CONNECTIVITY

JULY

20

19

PROGRAMME BUSINESS CASE FOR THE WELLINGTON FERRY TERMINALS

THE COOK STRAIT FERRIES:

NZ’S WATER BRIDGE

RESILIENT LIFELINE INFRASTRUCTURE

SUPPORTING THE ECONOMY

A QUALITY EXPERIENCE

Growing demand for the Cook Strait ferries means that change is necessary. We need to align out investment in ferry terminal infrastructure for maximum effect, but first, where should they go?

Cook Strait Connectivity | Programme Business Case | June 2019 | Page 1

Co

nn

ecting

the C

ou

ntry

Why are we looking at this?

So where in the lower North Island should the Cook Strait ferry terminal(s) be located?

Foreword

We’re examining a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reconfigure the Wellington ferry terminals. This nationally important infrastructure needs investment now.

It’s complex. Included are changes to marine infrastructure, road and rail, public transport and active mode provision, terminal buildings, civic redevelopment and strengthening for resilience. It requires key stakeholders to come together. CentrePort, the New Zealand Transport Agency, Greater Wellington Regional Council, Wellington City Council, Interislander and Bluebridge are working collaboratively on a solution. Wider support is also needed.

Together, the stakeholders identify opportunities to improve resilience for ferry operations, the city and region, to enhance the experience of ferry passengers and the general public, and to support the local, regional and national economy.

Kaiwharawhara has been identified as the preferred location for a multi-user ferry terminal. Determining the governance and ownership structure for this programme is one of the crucial next steps. There is a need for certainty on the future of the ferry terminals in order to coordinate stakeholders’ decision-making and the many hundreds of millions of investment needed.

The opportunity presented on a local, regional and national level is very significant. All stakeholders are committed to continuing to work together to achieve the best result for New Zealand.

Has statutory responsibilities in relation to overall land use and movement planning, spatial planning, local infrastructure provision and consenting.

Has regional statutory responsibilities relating to transport planning, public transport, harbour master services, civil defence, and environmental management.

Owns and operates Wellington’s port, including the land and the marine assets from which the two existing ferry companies operate from.

Operates the Bluebridge ferry service which caters for road freight, private vehicles and foot passengers transiting the Cook Strait.

Operates the Interislander ferry service which caters for road and rail freight, private vehicles and foot passengers transiting the Cook Strait.

The road controlling authority for the State Highway network and for linkages to communities, businesses and nationally significant facilities (ports, airports, hospitals).


Pro

ject Pa

rtners

Who’s involved?

ROSENEATH

ORIENTAL BAY

ROSENEATH

WADESTOWN

NATIONAL WAR MEMORIAL

TE PAPA

MOUNT VICTORIA LOOKOUT

WELLINGTON BOTANICAL GARDEN

BEEHIVE

WESTPAC STADIUM

KAIWHARAWHARA SITE:

Why are the ferries important?

EMPLOYMENT:

3600 jobsare supported by the Cook Strait ferry services in Wellington

ECONOMY:

$330mper year is injected into the city’s economy from the ferry services

FREIGHT:

$15b - $20bof commercial freight is operated on the Cook Strait ferries each year, comprising 4-5 million tonnes

CONNECTIVITY:

1.2m passengerstravel on the Cook Strait ferries each year, of which

35% are overseas tourists

RESILIENCE:

4-5 daysto access Wellington by sea after an Earthquake, versus 15 days by road The ferries are New Zealand’s State Highway 1 water-bridge and main trunk railway line connecting the north and south islands.

The ferries are a vital component of the New Zealand supply chain.

KINGS WHARF SITE:


Interislander

Current ships: 183m

Future ships: 209m

Bluebridge Current ships: 186m

A S

na

psh

ot

Gro

wth

Co

ntex

t


Can we accommodate the forecast growth?FORECAST GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR COOK STRAIT FERRIES

THE EXISTING TRANSPORT NETWORK IS ALREADY UNDER PRESSURE.

• The network as it is now cannot accommodate planned and forecast growth in ferry services and city population

• There is an aspiration to increase connectivity via public transport and active modes

• Interislander plan to introduce 50% larger ferries ferries by the mid 2020s

Local Heavy Commercial Vehicles (GWRC) National Freight (MoT)Tourists (MBIE) Extrapolated Trend

RE

LATI

VE

TO

20

13

2010 2020 2030 2040 2050 2060

2.8

2.6

2.4

2.2

2

1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1

(Stantec) based on data from 2013 - 2018

RESILIENCE

Lack of resilience in infrastructure, land and operations puts Wellington communities and NZ’s economy at risk

EXPERIENCE

Poor integration of ferry terminals with the city disrupts journey connectivity causing poor user experience that impact liveability

ECONOMY

Ferry terminal infrastructure and the surrounding transport network cannot meet current and future demand harming national and regional economic opportunities

What are the problems?

Pro

blem

s


ORIENTAL BAY

ROSENEATH

WADESTOWN

NATIONAL WAR MEMORIAL

TE PAPA

MOUNT VICTORIA LOOKOUT

WELLINGTON BOTANICAL GARDEN

BEEHIVE

WESTPAC STADIUM

HIGH

LIQUEFACTION

RISK

MODERATE LIQUEFACTION RISK

HIGH RISK OF SLOPE FAIL

WELLINGTON FAULT

SUPPLIES IN

HIG

H TSU

NA

MI R

ISK

HIGH TSUNAMI RISK

How important are the ferries for regional and national resilience?

THE FERRY TERMINALS ARE LIFELINE INFRASTRUCTURE

RESPONSE TO A MAJOR EVENT:

Estimated access time after an earthquake event:

4-5 days by sea 15 days by road

90% of food, fuel and materials deliveries to the region will have to come via the sea.

CentrePort will be the main point of entry for

supplies to Wellington, Western Wellington and the Hutt Valley.

Emergency response plans assume CentrePort will be usable within 5 days after an earthquake for roll-on/roll-off ferries.

Resilien

ce Co

ntex

t


2nd largest regional economy Contributing $35b GDP, the resumption of economic activity in the region is hugely important to the NZ economy

INVESTMENT IN THE FERRY TERMINAL AND SURROUNDING

INFRASTRUCTURE COULD IMPROVE THE RESILIENCE OF THE

CITY AND THE NATIONAL ECONOMY

Disaster Risk Levels for the Wellington Region:

Earthquake: Very High Tsunami: High Severe Storm/Flood: HighHuman Pandemic: HighLandside: High

In an event Wellington is at risk of being isolated by road for a long period, making the port critical for transport of emergency supplies

THORNDON OVERBRIDGE HAS KNOWN VULNERABILITIES

KAIWHARAWHARA :

• Located on Wellington Fault• SH1 Thorndon Overbridge is

particularly vulnerable• Liquefaction risk

KINGS WHARF:

• Sustains damage even in minor-to-moderate earthquake events due to the basin effect & reclaimed land

• More vulnerable to tsunami• Damaged buildings in surrounding

area could create cordons

vs.

Refer Working Papers for more commentary and engineering assessment of both sites.

New Zealand Inc.


CONNECTING STATE HIGHWAY 1, THE FERRIES PROVIDE A CRUCIAL LINK IN THE NEW ZEALAND SUPPLY CHAIN AND SERVE AN IMPORTANT SOCIAL FUNCTION.

Ex

perien

ce Co

ntex

t

Located at the heart of our capital city

A vital connection between the north and south islands A recognisable part

of Wellington’s character

A major influence on city vibrancy and aesthetics

A domestic travel essential for moving between islands, and an alternative to flying

What do the ferries mean to people?

Affects how 420,000 tourists experience Wellington each year

An iconic kiwi holiday and a key part of most tourist agendas

Who are ferry customers?

ROAD FREIGHT:

4-5 million tonnesof freight transported across the Cook Strait annually

Average growth of road freight:

7% per annum

I’m looking for travel time reliability and efficiency, and the efficiency of queuing and onboarding/offboarding.

RAIL FREIGHT:

300,000 tonnes of cargo transported

through CentrePort in 2015Average growth of rail freight:

3-4% per annumI’m interested in minimising conflict with road users, having efficient onboarding and offboarding procedures and providing a reliable and timely end-to-end journey.

PRIVATE VEHICLES

310,000 Average number of vehicles journeys per

year on the Cook Strait Ferries

Average growth of private vehicles users:

4% per annumI’m more interested in the experience in travel times, transport options and reliability of getting to the terminal.

PASSENGERS

1.2 million average number of passengers

per year on the Cook Strait ferries

Average growth of foot passengers:

6-8% per annumI want the unique experience of crossing the Cook Strait on ferry, with easy and efficient transitions at either end.

Eco

no

my

Co

ntex

t


PICK UP AND DROP OFF

350,000 pick up and drop off vehicle movements per year

I want an easy and efficient way to pick up and drop off my family and friends.

OPERATIONS

I want an efficient and easy-to-understand loading and unloading operation for freight and passenger vehicles.

EMPLOYEES

820 directly employed in the ferry operations

I need to get to work on time so ease of access and travel time reliability to and from work is my biggest concern.

HARBOUR RECREATIONAL USERS

I’m looking for maximum unrestricted access to the harbour for sailing, kayaking, swimming and more.


Who are ferry customers?

Eco

no

my

Co

ntex

t

$330mESTIMATED GDP IMPACT PER YEAR OF FERRY SPENDING IN WELLINGTON

3600 jobsIN WELLINGTON ARE SUPPORTED BY THE COOK STRAIT FERRY SERVICES

INVESTMENT IN THE FUTURE OF THE FERRY TERMINALS WILL SUPPORT THE FORECAST GROWTH IN DEMAND FOR THESE FERRIES, IMPROVE USER EXPERIENCE AND SUPPORT THE LOCAL, REGIONAL AND NATIONAL ECONOMY.

Who are ferry customers? Why does this matter?

RESILIENCE

Lack of resilience in infrastructure, land and operations puts Wellington communities and NZ’s economy at risk

EXPERIENCE

Poor integration of ferry terminals with the city disrupts journey connectivity causing poor user experience that impacts liveability

ECONOMY

Ferry Terminal infrastructure cannot meet current and future demand harming national and regional economic opportunities

1: Speed of recovery

2: Emergency response availability in Wellington

3: Reduced GDP impact

1: Multimodal and congestion metrics

2: Amenity metrics (non- ferry and ferry users)

3: Development metrics

1: Cook Strait volume and value measures

2: Tourism metrics

3: Infrastructure investment return

INVESTMENT

Improved resilience of Cook Strait connectivity

Better Northern Gateway and ferry user experiences

Sustain economic and tourism growth

PR

OB

LEM

SB

EN

EFI

TSK

PIS

Ca

se for C

ha

ng

e



RESILIENCE

To improve recovery and response of the Wellington Ferry Terminal following significant natural events

EXPERIENCE

To improve the quality of Wellington Ferry Terminal infrastructure, access and services for ferry users and the wider Wellington public

ECONOMY

To optimise asset investment decision making to support future ferry investment, freight efficiency, tourism spend, CBD growth, and port operations

Inv

estmen

t Ob

jectives

What are we trying to achieve?

What are we trying to achieve? Where should the ferry terminals be located?

CONSIDERATIONS:

Physical characteristics including the seabed and landside environment, navigable waters and prevailing winds.

The freight network is very sensitive to travel time across Cook Strait (screen for <30min additional travel time).

Links to pre-existing transport network linkages.

Proximity to populated areas increases benefits of ferry terminal after high-impact low-probability events.

Statutory approvals processes in terms of timeliness and ability to secure consent.

Alignment of port activity with key policy directions and aspirations of government organisations.

Kaiwharawhara & Kings Wharf score the best

Lo

ng

list Ev

alu

atio

n

WAINUIOMATA

PETONE

LOWER HUTT

SILVERSTREAM

PORIRUA

TAWA

JOHNSONVILLE

TE ARO

MIRAMAR


PORIRUA

NGAURANGA

KAIWHARAWHARA

AOTEA

CONTAINERKINGS

BURNHAM

SEAVIEW

LONGLIST OPTION

To meet NZ Inc. requirements freight needs to be within 3 hours sailing time for 3 crossings a day.

Locations from Kapiti to Wairarapa were explored and rejected due to lack of facilities, cost, or other factors.

3 HOURS

Interv

entio

n A

na

lysis

What are the options?


KAIWHARAWHARA

KINGS WHARF

Separate locations

Road, rail, public transport,

cycleway & footpath connections

Public amenities

Resilience improvements to terminal(s) and

transport network

Single-user terminals

Multi-user terminal

TERMINAL LOCATION TERMINAL LAYOUT PLUS OTHER INTERVENTIONS

RESILIENCE

• Resilience and recovery to High Impact Low Probability Event Day Zero to Day 20

• Resilience and recovery to High Impact Low Probability Event Day 20 to Day 1000

• Resilience to moderate events (non HILP).

EXPERIENCE

• Logical location for long term planning of the city to achieve city aspirations

• Traffic impact on other network users

• Integrated transportation/land use

• Connection to alternative transport modes

• Tourism and visitor ferry journey experience

• On-harbour recreational user impacts

ECONOMY

• Optimising land for highest and best use

• Enables efficient terminus layout

• Harbour management maritime operation

• Economic impact beyond the site

• Supports efficient freight

• Supports tourism growth

• Ongoing costs

DELIVERY

• Environmental / ease of consenting

• Impact on ferry operations during construction & transition

• Impact on other Port operations during construction & transition

• CAPEX terminus facilities

• CAPEX transportation network

Sh

ortlist D

evelo

pm

ent

What is important?

First Pass Shortlist Analysis

STATUS QUO (NO CHANGE) ENHANCED STATUS QUO (MINOR INTERSECTION AND TERMINAL IMPROVEMENTS)

SINGLE-USER TERMINALS AT KAIWHARAWHARA

SINGLE-USER TERMINALS AT KINGS WHARF

MULTI-USER TERMINALS AT KAIWHARAWHARA

MULTI-USER TERMINALS AT KINGS WHARF

1 3 52 4 6


DEFAULT OPTION THESE OPTIONS SCORED THE BEST

OPTION 1: KAIWHARAWHARA INDICATIVE CONCEPTNote: more design detail than is typical for a PBC is provided due to stakeholders’ need for confidence that efficient terminal layouts can be achieved. Layouts and drawings are indicative and are only intended to show that the site footprint is likely to be adequate for the intended purpose. This is one of many possible design layouts at Kaiwharawhara.

Sh

ortlist D

evelo

pm

ent


This transport intervention produces network-wide economic benefits over three times that of the Kings Wharf (Option 2) transport interventions.

Further resilience and engineering studies will be needed to confirm current engineering and costing advice in the next project phases.

Required strengthening of SH1 overbridge is understood to be planned by NZTA, which would improve the resilience of a Kaiwharawhara ferry terminal and, on a larger scale, of the city.

Reclaiming land creates efficiencies for operations, but has higher consenting risks. Other options exist without the need for reclaimed land.

www.beca.com

www.beca.com

WHARF EXTENSION

GNITSIXE HSILOMEDFRAHW REGNIF

GNITSIXE HSILOMEDSNIHPLOD

LEVEL 2 , )LEVEL REWOL( KCART 2HTREB YRAMIRP ROF NAPSKNIL

DOLPHIN STRUCTURE WHARF

INTERISL

ANDER

DNA LIAR REVO ETUOR TIXE / YRTNEDAOR TTUH MORF YAWROTOM

HUTT ROAD HUTT ROAD

YAWROTOM NABRU

NORTH BOUND ON RAMP

DOUBLE BACK SHUNT

BLUEBRIDGE TRADECARS / HEAVY FREIGHT

ETUOR SSECCA FO NOITNETXEHTREB PU KCAB OT DRAY TC MORF

PRESERVATION ANDENHANCEMENT OF ESTUARY

/ FFO PORD LANIMRET ELBISSOPBUH SUB / AERA PU KCIP

BALS SA DETCURTSNOC( LIAR WEN)DRAY GNILLAHSRAM SSORCA KCART

SPARE AREA)YAWROTOM REDNU(

2 LANE PV / CV RAMPTO UPPER LEVEL

NIHPLOD GNITSEN

OT ETUOR SSECCA GNITSIXEDRAY )TC( LANIMRET RENIATNOC

MULTI-U

SER BA

CK-UP B

ERTH

AMENITIES / COFFEE CART /MOTOR BIKE RIDER SHELTER

BLUEBRIDGE TRUCK / TRAILERDISCHARGE AREA

ELCIHEV EGDIRBEULB .oN 3SHTOOB NI-KCEHC

COFFEE CART /WALKABOUT SPACE

MORF ETIS OT YRTNEURBAN MOTORWAY

LATNER / MRET GNOLCAR PARKING AREA

HTIW GNIKRAP FFATSWALKWAY TO CHECK-INBOOTHS/ MARSHALLINGYARD

INTERISLANDER TUGSTABLING

ARTICULATED SEABRIDGE

BLUEB

RIDGE

GNILLAHSRAM VC / VP EGDIRBEULB

MULTI-USER TERMINAL

RECLAIMED LAND

)LEVEL 2( mqs 0004

PASSENGER GANGWAY

2 LANE SINGLE LEVELLINKSPAN

INTERISLANDER TRUCK / TRAILERDISCHARGE AREA - 40 SLOTS STAFF

PARKING AREA

BLUEBRIDGEWORKSHOP

TERMINAL EXIT FLYOVER BLUEBRIDGEEXIT FLYOVER

AERA GNIGATS EGDIRBEULB ELBISSOPOR COULD BE USED AS EXTRA TERMINALDROP OFF / PICK UP AREA

OPTION TO DEMOLISH REDUNDANT WHARVES

IND

ICA

TIV

E LO

CA

TIO

N O

F

WEL

LIN

GTO

N F

AU

LT

WATERLOO QUAY

REDNALSIRETNI

CENTREPORTCONTAINER AREA

EXISTING CUSTOM HOUSE BUILDING

NOITATS YAWLIAR NOTGNILLEW

DEVELOPMENT AREA

RELOCATED HERITAGE BUILDING

EXISTING RAILFROM MAIN LINE

GLASGOW WHARF

WATERLOO QUAY

TRADE CARS / HEAVYFREIGHT AREA

BLUEBRIDGE 2 LANE SINGLELEVEL LINKSPAN

PASSENGER GANGWAY WITHARTICULATED SEABRIDGE

BACK UP BERTH UNTILAREA IS DEVELOPED

TRUCK / TRAILERDISCHARGE

AMENITIES / COFFEE CARTMOTORBIKE RIDER SHELTER

INTERISLANDER TUG STABLING

DOLPHIN WHARF STRUCTURE

POCKET BERTH FOR INTERISLANDER

PASSENGER GANGWAYWITH ARTICULATED SEABRIDGE

2 TRACK (LOWER LEVEL),2 LEVEL LINKSPAN

SLIP LANE FOR ENTRY

2 LEVEL MULTI-USERTERMINAL (4000 sqm)

FUTURE BACK-UPBERTH POCKET

INTERISLANDER TRUCK / TRAILERDISCHARGE

RECLAMATIONAREA

TERMINAL DROP OFF / PICK UP /PARKING AREA

BLUEBRIDGEWORKSHOP

INTERISLANDERPV / CV MARSHALLING AREA

6 No.MULTI-USER VEHICLECHECK IN BOOTHSINTERISLANDER EXITOVERBRIDGE

BLUEBRIDGE PV / CV MARSHALLING

5 LANE OVERBRIDGE FOR GRADESEPARATION OF RAIL

2 LANE PV / CV RAMP TO UPPER LEVEL

4 x RAKES TO SERVICESTARBOARD SIDE OF VESSEL

4 x RAKES TO SERVICEPORT SIDE OF VESSEL

SECURiTY GATE

LONG TERM / RENTAL CAR / STAFF PARKING AREA

PV / CV ENTRY / EXIT ROUTE

CENTREPORTRAIL LINES

FENCE TO SEPARATE FERRYTERMINAL AND MAIN PORTOPERATIONS

RAKE SEPARATION AREA

NEW PORT ACCESS ROUTE

EGDIRBEULB

INTERISLANDER CT YARD TOBACK-UP BERTH ROUTE FORRO-RO OPERATONS

Note: more design detail than is typical for a PBC is provided due to stakeholders’ need for confidence that efficient terminal layouts can be achieved. Layouts and drawings are indicative and are only intended to show that the site footprint is likely to be adequate for the intended purpose. This is one of many possible design layouts at Kings Wharf.

Sh

ortlist D

evelo

pm

ent

OPTION 2: KINGS WHARF INDICATIVE CONCEPT


Further resilience and engineering studies will be needed to confirm current engineering and costing advice in the next project phases.

Significant ground improvement is required due to the high liquifaction issues at this site.

Transport intervention options explored somewhat accommodate the ferry traffic but do not produce significant network-wide benefits. In this option, ferry traffic will need to be retained on site during peak periods and release to the transport network regulated. Proximity to rail and bus hubs supports stakeholder and GPS objectives.

Sh

ortlist D

evelo

pm

ent

Kaiwharawhara Kings Wharf

Terminal $320-$590M $350-$640M

Transport $70-$140M $30-$60M

Total $390-$730M $380-$700M

How do the options compare?

*Ongoing costs were not considered to differentiate between site options and are anticipated to be lower than the enhanced status quo operating costs.

Refer Working Paper 2 for multi-criteria analysis (MCA) scoring results, commentary on the scoring of each option by expert advisors and sensitivity testing.

Capital Costs*:


Enhanced Status Quo Kaiwharawhara Multi-user Kings Multi-user

RESILIENCE

Resilience to high impact low probability event Day Zero to day 20

Resilience to high impact low probability event Day 20 to day 1000

Resilience to moderate events

EXPERIENCE

Logical location for long term planning of the city to achieve city aspirations

Traffic impact on other network users

Integrated transportation/land use

Connection to alternative transport modes

Tourism and visitor ferry journey experience

On-harbour recreational user impacts

ECONOMY

Optimising land for highest and best use

Enables efficient terminus layout

Harbour management maritime operation

Economic impact beyond the site

DELIVERY

Environmental / ease of consenting

Impact on ferry operations during construction & transition

Impact on other Port operations during construction & transition

CAPEX terminus facilities

CAPEX transportation network

MCA rating framework

-3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3

All scores to be relative to the current status quo

TERMINAL EXIT FLYOVER

STAFF PARKING UNDERMOTOR WAY WITH SAFE

CONNEC TION TO TERMINAL

2-LANE RAMP TO UPPER LE VEL

MULTI-USERTERMINAL

EXISTING R TRCONNEC TION TO C T YARD

BLUEBRIDGEEXIT FLYOVER

BEACH WITHDEEP WATER FISHING ACCESS

IMPROVED PUBLIC ACCESSCOFFEE CAR T + REST AREA WITH

TERRACED ACCESS TO WATER

DOLPHIN WHARF

WHARF EX TENSION(109m)

MULTI-USERBACK-UP BER TH

ECOLOGICAL ENHANCEMENT OF

ESTUARY AND STREAM

NOR THBOUND ON RAMP

HUT T RD ENTRY + EXITOVER SH1 AND R AIL

BUILDING REMOVED+ RE VEGE TATION

SH1 ENTRY ONLY

POTENTIAL SCULPTURELOCATION

HUT T RD

SH1

KAIWHARAWHARA RD

Preferred programme: Multi-user terminal at KaiwharawharaNote: the concept shown above is one of many possible design options. Layouts and drawings are indicative and are only intended to show that the site footprint is likely to be adequate for the intended purpose. Alternative design layouts and physical footprints at and in the vicinity of Kaiwharawhara will be explored in the next project phase.


ASSUMPTIONS:

• All shorted listed sites, including the preferred option, presented significant resilience design issues.

• Cost esimates include for work to address life safety and building consents based on advice sought from structural engineers.

• Testing the underlying assumptions of structural engineering advice and associated cost estimates through more detailed evaluation is a priority action for the next phase of project development.

OPPORTUNITIES:

• Civic redevelopment of waterfront

• Improve resilience of Aotea off-ramp and SH1 overpass

• Road space relocation of Aotea Quay

• Possible cruise relocation

TERMINAL & FACILITIES $320-$590MCentrePort, Interislander & Bluebridge (TBC)

TRANSPORT SYSTEM $70-$140M NZTA, GWRC & WCC (TBC)

TOTAL $390-$730M

Shown in 2022 dollar figuresCost splits between the stakeholders will be addressed in the next project phases

INDICATIVE LOCATION OF WELLINGTON FAULT

FAULT LINE

RESILIENT NEW INFRASTRUCTURE

• Investment in ground strengthening, seismic design of terminals and wharfs, and a new transport link to Hutt Road, will improve the resilience of the terminals and support their function as a city lifeline in a major event.

A GREAT EXPERIENCE

• Co-location of the ferries will enable shared facilities to be developed to enhance passenger and freight experience. New transport interventions improve the experience of all network users. Freight is removed from the city and city development opportunities for inner-city port land are created.

SUPPORTS ECONOMIC GROWTH

• Growth of the ferry operations is provided for. Shared infrastructure increases value-for-money of investment. Freight efficiency is improved by shorter and more reliable routes. Tourist experience is improved. Avoids investment in isolated assets.

Preferred

Pro

gra

mm

e

Interim works - build and ferry delivery

Ind

icativ

e Pro

gra

mm

e Deliv

ery

Finalise PBC

Interim works - business case and consents

Endorse recommended ferry terminal location

Implement project governance structures

Ferry Terminal Construction

Setup and open

Transport Construction

Business case development for

transport

Consenting consultation

Interim works - concept design

How will we deliver this programme? Note this programme is indicative only and will depend heavily on governance arrangements (refer next steps section).

2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028


Site masterplan concept design

Develop and agree operating protocols

Consenting preparation and level design

Site masterplan developed design

Kaiwharawhara resilience study

Business case development for transport

Business case development for new ferry terminal

Ferry Terminal Procurement

Transport Procurement

Transport Detailed Design

Ferry Terminal Detailed Design

1. Stakeholders to endorse or acknowledge recommended ferry terminal location

(this programme business case) and confirm their intent to continue to

work together in the next project phase

2. Commission further structural and resilience engineering feasibility studies

3. Workshop and reach agreement on programme governance structure, including:

• Clear leadership, governance and responsibilities

• Risk apportionment, risks and issues management

• Ownership and procurement model

• Funding approvals and accountability

• Overall coordination of works during design and construction delivery

4. Confirm site masterplan and apportion projects among stakeholders

What are the next steps?

Nex

t Step

s


www.beca.com

JULY

20

19

CONNECTING THE COUNTRY

Documents

JULY 2019 COOK STRAIT CONNECTIVITY - GW · COOK STRAIT CONNECTIVITY JULY 2019 PROGRAMME BUSINESS CASE FOR THE WELLINGTON FERRY TERMINALS THE COOK STRAIT FERRIES: NZ’S WATER BRIDGE